Disposed

M/ s. Edessary Pharma v. Dr. Prakash P Ghatage

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRP/1081/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Civil Revision Petition where the petitioner sought to stay enforcement proceedings. The court upheld the lower court order directing deposit of arrears but granted an extension of time for depositing the installments.

What did the court decide?

Extension granted for depositing first installment till 05.05.2023 and second installment till 05.06.2023; Civil Revision Petition disposed of.

M/ s. Edessary Pharma Vs Dr. Prakash P Ghatage — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{P. NAVEEN RAO}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITION NO: 1081 OF 2023}

¶6

Petition Under Article²²⁷ of^{Constitution of lndia aggrieved by} the order dated 03-03-2023^{in E.A.No. 99 0t 2022 in E.P. No. 789 0f 2022 0n the} file of the court of the Xl^{AdditionalchiefJudge, city civil court at Hyderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Edessary Pharma,^{Rep by its Proprietor Saurabh-Agarwal, S/o..Vijay} Kumar Agaruval Aged. 37^{year3, Occ. Bqsg.e-ss,.} -flo.^{3-4-872' Barkatpura,} ftyaerauat ...PET|T|oNER/ Petitioner^{/ JDR / Defendant}

¶9

AND

¶10

Dr. Prakash P Ghatage,^{S/o. Late P.S. Ghatage,Ag-qd.6!years,.Occ.Doctor,} R:/o. USA, Rep by 6PA^{holder Mr.Smith Gala, Sio. Arun Gala,.Aged. 31} years, Occ. Buine3s, Rl/o. Arihanth^{Rgency' Kacheguda, Hyderabad'}

¶11

Pragual P Ghatage,^{S/o. Late P.S Ghatage,Aged.60 years, Occ'^Doctor'} R/o]Canada, Rei oy Smt.^{Pushpa, W/o.Late Jyaprakash,Aged' 62. years'} ocC. Householi,^' Rl/o.^{3-6-433, Arihant Gulmohar,Apartments,} iimayatnnagar, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/ Respondents/ DHR / Plaintiff

¶12

Sri Kishanchand Singhal,^{S/o. P.R. Gupta' Aged. 77.years, Occ' Business,} N o. 3-2-836 12, Lingampally,^{Kachiguda, Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ Respondent^{/ DHR/ Defendant}

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} suspend order dated^{03.03.2023passed in E.A No. 99 of 2022 on the file of the} Hon'ble Xl Additional^{Chief Judge, City CivilCourt,At Hyderabadpending} disposal of the^{present revision petition}

¶16

I I I T E : LI : ! i

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the execution proceedings in E.P. 789 ot 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, At Hyderabad pending disposal of the present revision petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVITEJA AKELLA

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI R. RAMA BRAHMMA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 :

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

CTVIL REVISION PE"TITION NO.1081 OF 20.23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel Sri A.Ravi Teja for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri R.Rama Brahmma for the first respondent.

¶28

Respondents I and 2 herein and Smt. Kusum P.Ghatage claim as owners of Mulgi bearing no.3-2-83612 forming part of premises bearing no.3-2-836 with dimensions of 12 ft x 25 ft and lO ft x 20 ft of total area of 55O square feet, located in Kachiguda Main Road, Hyderabad. It was leased out to Sri. Kishanchand Singhal (3.a respondent herein) in the year l99O on initial monthly rent of t 1,000/-. The premises is used lor running 'Edessary Pharma,. Sri. Kishanchand Singhal is the proprietor of Edessary Pharma. Respondents l and 2 herein and Smt. Kusum P.Ghatage liled R.C.No.264 of 2Ol2 in the Court of lV Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad contending that in spite of several requests made, the rent was not increased and prayed to increase the rent @ < 4O,OOO|per month from August, 2012. However, by Order dated O8.O5.2015, the Rent Controller granted e nhancement of rent @ 24,OOO / - per month from the month of August, 2012, excluding the propert5r tax and electricity chargcs n'i[h increase of 57o per annum while the

¶29

¶30

lease in force. The respondent was clirected io pay thc arrears of rents from August 2Ol2 to April, 20iS.

¶31

Respondents 1 and 2 herein instituted O.S.No.gO3 of 2016 against the 3rd respondent herein praying to grant decree for eviction of defendant from the mulgie consisting of two rooms and payment of t 14,01,316/- towards arrears of rents and mesne profits and future mesne profits @ t 3O,0O0/- per month from December, 2016 ti the delivery of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the said suit, M/s. Edessary pharma, represenLed by its proprictor Sanjay Kumar Garg, filed I.A.No.245 of 201g pr.aying to implead him as defendant no.2. The Court below, by order dated O2.08.20lg allowed the said I.A.

¶32

Court is informed that O.S.No.gO3 of 2O i 6 was decreed on 13.07 .2022 directing the defendants to vacate thc suit schedule premises within three monttrs and was further directed to pay a sum ol t 14,01,316/- towards arrezrrs of rents, mesne profits and other amounts, a sum of t 3O,0OO/- per month towards future mesne profits from December, 20 16 till the delivery. of the suit schedule property. Court is informed that sa;d judgment and decree has become final. Court is informed that Edessary pharma filed l.A.No.l722 of 2022 in O.S.No.803 of 2Ot6 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, f{yderabad praying ro

¶33

¶34

¶35

condone the delay of 45 days and also filed another I.A.No.1723 of 2022 praying to set aside the ex parte^judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 in O.S.No.803 of 2016 and said IAs are pending consideration of the concerned Court.

¶36

While that being so, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8O3 of 2016 hled E.P.No.789 of 2022 seeking enforcement of judgment and decree passed in their favour. In the said E. P., petitioner herein filed E.A.No.99 of 2022 praying the Court to stay all further proceedings. By Order dated 03.03.2O23, impugned herein, the Court below observed that no document was filed for a decade regarding payment of rent and the petitioner committing default and not paying the rents. In those circumstances, petition filed by the petitioner was conditionally allowed directing the petitioner to make deposit of arrears of rent of < 14,Ol ,316 I in two monthly instalments.

¶37

Having regard to the issue involved and the history of litigation briefly noted, I do not see any error in the decision of Court below directing the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the Order dated 03.03.2023 by granting two instalments for making said payment.

¶38

At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioner requested to grant some more time to deposit the amount ordered by the Court beiow. Having regard to said prayer, I deem it proper to grant little

¶39

-5

¶40

more time for petitioner to deposit the amount. The time to deposit lrrst instalment on or before 20.03.2023, as directed by the Court below in E.A.No.99 of 2022, is extended till 05.05.2023 and rhe rime to deposit second instalment on or before 2o.o4.2o23 is extended till 05.06.2023. The Civil Revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qli) SECT|ON OFFICER

¶42

¶43

1 . The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶44

One CC to SRl. RAVITEJA AKELLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to SRl. R. RAMA BRAHMMA , Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies kul )A/-

HIGH COURT

PNRJ

DATED:0610412023

--."-:-.,-....'-.
i
l1ftAY2'123

ORDER

CRP.No.1081 of 2023

DTSPOSING OF THE

CIVIL REVISION PETITION.

M/ s. Edessary Pharma v. Dr. Prakash P Ghatage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/ s. Edessary Pharma v. Dr. Prakash P Ghatage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Qadeer Vs Syed Naseer

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. S. N. Srinivas

Sri Gayatri Japayagna Parishat Vs A.N. Dasarath

Mohd. Saleem Vs P.Naveen Kumar

A.B. Joseph (Expired) Vs Akkladevi Parameshwar

Sri Kota Krishna Venkata Satish Vs Smt. Kota Venkata Sameera